"I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen," Clapper told a defense and intelligence contractor trade group. "If there's a good side to this, maybe that's it."

Well, isn't that interesting? Of course, considering that he was the Director of National Intelligence and that the oversight committee, which is supposed to keep him in line, tried to start that debate a few months ago and Clapper's response was to flat-out lie to them, it seems worth questioning why it appears that he did everything possible to avoid having that debate? It also raises the question of why he's still in a job (and not facing charges).

Clapper also admits that he knows that the leaks aren't done:

"Unfortunately, there is more to come," he said.

Seeing as the existing leaks helped push forward a debate that "needed to happen," I don't see what's so unfortunate about that.

Clapper also insisted that those awful journalists covering the story have been letting their minds run wild:

Journalists examining the surveillance programs that Snowden disclosed "go to the deepest darkest place they can and make the most conspiratorial case for what the intelligence community is doing."

Two things about that. First, so far what we've seen after pretty much every leak is that Clapper's office or others in the administration make a statement that includes a bunch of weasel words that are redefined to mean something different than what the public actually thinks -- and those "non-lie lies" are then exposed in later revelations from the leaks. Given that, is it really any surprise that people have little trust in what the intelligence community is saying?

Second, you know how you avoid having journalists take the details of the program and "going to the deepest darkest place and making the most conspiratorial case for what the intelligence community is doing"? It's called being more open and transparent and actually having the debate that you're now running from.

Besides, considering some of the existing leaks about rampant abuses (some not defined as abuses), dreadful coverups, the inability to know what Snowden took or how he took it, the economic espionage, the finding internal informants to help get around encryption and a variety of other very questionable things, is it any wonder that people don't trust the NSA?

Tell you what. Send your "he should have said this" quote to Orin Kerr, and then ask Orin for his opinion. Of course, in lieu of this you could simply read his article over at Eugene Volokh's site. It can be found at:

Clapper was placed in a very difficult position, Wyden did it deliberately for reasons known only to him, and his "but I sent him a copy the day before and gave him the chance afterwards" is self-serving and disingenuous.

My point is and always has been that those who demean Clapper may very well not appreciate the position in which he was placed by Wyden. BTW, it does matter that you have never held a security clearance in the sense that it would give you much more insight into why Clapper reacted as he did.

As for what Groves might have said in response to the hypo, I can assure you that his answer would have been a firm, confident, and resounding "No!"